Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Times have been really tough for myself in the world of business, and my immediate future is certainly uncertain right now.

I am a partner in a small business that is based on commission-based sales, and the tanking economy has hit our company as hard as anyone else in this country. Funny, but last year was our best year ever...this year the worst. Even worse than when I was fresh out of college and looking for my first career-related job. I may have to start burning the candle at both ends and go back to bouncer work at night and construction work on the weekends...but one thing I do know is this: I'm on the brink of financial disaster, but I know that I must remain positive and find a way.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

The first was a very insightful breakdown of Gone With the Wind by some guy going by the moniker Gawain's Ghost:

Forget about these TV shows and romantic comedies, they're only an extension of the larger problem, which is romance novels. This is the largest publishing industry in the world, with millions of books sold every year and billions in profits. Funny thing is, they're all written by women, they're all read by women, and they all follow the same formula: girl meets boy, girl loses boy, girl wins boy back. (This is the underlying mindset that is the root of the problem--it's all about her, not about them.)

What I find most amusing about romance novels is that the No. 1 best selling book of all time--it's a romance novel, and it has sold more copies and been read by more people than any other book ever published--does not follow the romance formula. I am referring of course to Gone With the Wind.

Scarlett O'Hara loved Ashley Wilkes. Why? Because he was a scion, a son of privilege. He's the son of a wealthy plantation owner. She's the daughter of a wealthy plantation owner. It's just so right they should be together! Southern gentry, you see.

Well, if it's so right, why does Ashley not love Scarlett? Because he knew her. He grew up with her, the mansion down the road; they went to school together. He knew she would never be anything other than a stupid, spoiled, conceited little girl. So he married her best friend, Melanie. (Snort.)

Why does Ashley love Melanie? Because she's a woman. Comfortable in her feminity, she understands the terms and conditions of the marriage contract, and does not question her role and responsibilities in the relationship. Unlike Scarlett, who thinks she's special.

If Scarlett is just a stupid, spoiled, conceited little girl, why does Rhett Butler love her? I mean, really, this guy could have had any woman he wanted. Tall, dark, handsome, brave, daring, courageous, rich. Why would a man like that risk everything for a stupid little girl like Scarlett?

Because she was what he couldn't have when he was growing up. Are you kidding? Her father would have shot him if he even looked at her. Southern gentry, you see. So Rhett mistakenly believed that all he had to do was make himself into a man--he made his fortune gun running and bootlegging, a perilous and testing quest--make millions, and then Scarlett would love him. (Notice the medieval cartoon playing out in his mind.) So he did, and she didn't.

Why does Scarlett not love Rhett? I mean, this guy did everything for her. He made millions for her; he went to war for her; he saved her family estate. Why then does Scarlett not love him?

Because he was not a scion. He was not southern gentry. He was only, in her mind, a commoner. In other words, she thought she was better than him. (Notice that this is the exact problem the modern American girl has in the relationship with the man in her life.)

Well, if she didn't love him, why did she marry him? Because she needed his money. Why else?

So Ashley married Melanie, and Scarlett married Rhett. Then, Melanie dies prematurely, leaving Ashley grieving and all alone. And Melanie even tells Scarlett on her death bed, "Captain Butler--be kind to him. He--loves you so." Scarlett asks, "Rhett?"

She never cared about him. She loved Ashely, she lost Ashley, and now this is her big chance. Girl wins boy back!

Not in this book. Ashley didn't love her. Ashley never loved her. Ashley wouldn't have anything to do with her. Her husband, Captain Rhett Butler, did love her, but now he's leaving! And as he's walking out the door, Scarlett suddenly comes to the realization of how incredibly stupid she's been, and that she really does love him. This is her last chance. Girl wins boy back!

"Rhett! Rhett! Don't go! Don't go! Where will I go? What will I do?"

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Forget formula, which is fantasy. This is about plot, which is real life. Girl meets man. Girl refuses to grow up. Man leaves.

This is why it is a mistake to consider Ashley Wilkes a wimp, as he is commonly portrayed. He knew a woman when he saw one, and he married her. Yes, it is unfortunate that Melanie dies. But when she was sick and dying, Ashley did not question his responsibilities. He was right there by her side, soothing her, assuring her, loving her, all the way to the bitter end. This is a man. Besides, after Melanie passes away, Ashley is still rich.

Contrast that with Rhett Butler. He didn't know a stupid, spoiled, conceited little girl when he saw one, and he married her. (Even the best of men make mistakes in love.) And when the entire relationship falls apart, because his wife couldn't get over her school girl crush (read romance formula), all he has left, out of all of his millions, is the clothes he's wearing when he walks out the door. But at least he has his manhood, for what it's worth, which after having wasted it is effectively nothing.

The point of all this is that people make a grave mistake when they look to romance comedies as the basis for their relationships. Margret Mitchell didn't understand romance as much as she understood life, the fundamental relationship between men and women. That's why her novel is more of a tragedy than it is a history.

It goes to a definition of terms. Romance (with a capital R) is an informing strategy, by which we make sense of the world; romance (with a small r) is a love story, by which we make ruin of our lives.

Love is for fools. Even the most casual observer knows that. It is only knowledge, honesty and trust (what Ashley and Melanie had) that makes for a relationship. What Rhett and Scarlett had, medieval love and the need for money, paves the way for self-destruction.

In conclusion, I apologize to Dr. Helen for using up so much of her bandwidth, but this is one of my pet peeves.

And as far as the modern American girl goes, Scarletts the lot of them, I'd rather have the money.

Contrast "Gone with the Wind" with the highest grossing romantic movie of all time and what it teaches about romance.

What should a young, Hollywood hero do when he sees another man's fiance contemplating suicide on the back of a ship? Pursue her behind his back, of course.

What should a young Hollywood heroine do when she decides she does not want to marry her fiance? Go and break off the engagement like an adult? Of course not. She is to pose nude for an unemployed man she just met wearing a piece of jewelry given to her by her fiance, leave the nude portrait with a crude note for the fiance to find, then run off and have sex in the back seat of the fiances car. And when the fiance is *gasp* angry about this, he's a jerk (of course, if a man did this to a woman her anger would be righteous indignation, but that's another story).

We all know what movie I refer to, and how many millions of young people were influenced by it. Icing on the cake after years of cartoons promoting the frog prince (when you find a toad, kiss him), Lady and the Tramp (chicken thieves are great partners), Beauty and the Beast (who cares that he's mean, her love will fix him), Alladin (who cares that he's a theif, he has a good heart), and various soap operas (the best men ride motorcycles and get into bar fights, villians wear ties).

It's no surprise folks...the mass media has played a KEY role in fomenting the plague of broken homes and single mother households as well as subliminally influencing millions of people that never get married, never have children and create Patriarchal Family Units.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Some of my fav's after I discovered the MRA/MGTOW/PUA/Men's Rights/Father's Rights websites:

The age-old bargain was that women exchanged sex for whatever they wanted, and men exchanged whatever they had for sex. Part of the deal was that the woman would be reasonably agreeable. A career woman today, being independent, no longer has to be agreeable, and frequently isn’t. On the other hand, a man doesn’t have to commit himself to anything to get sex. So the man dates his secretary, and the career woman sits in her apartment with the cats. - Fred Reed from Fred On Everything

Question: What are permanently unmarried women, whose illegitimate children have been taken from them to be raised by the state, good for anyway?

Government and big corporations have created a society where men work and then hand over their money for women to spend. Traditionally men have always done this but recently the government has acted as a third party to control this process. The money is either removed from men's back pockets as tax and then redistributed to single mothers or done via the courts and the CSA following divorce. The outcome is the same: women end up controlling men's money. - Captain Zarmband

We don't need a legislature or judges to fall in love, have children, have a loving family, to build a home, or to be happy with the fruits of life. So why do we need legislatures or judges for marriage? - Da Pook from Pook's Mill

I remember back when a family consisted of a father and mother, and if you screwed up, your father beat your ass...it might be called child abuse now, but it at least kept kids in line. Now, government is these single moms' "husband" and these kids' "daddy", trying to discipline them through "progressive" disciplinary methods like juvenile detention centers - which is only preparing these bastard kids for a life in the government's prison system and wasting tons of taxpayers' money. Nothing like having a father to beat your kid's ass when he or she screws up - and much more cost effective to the taxpayers. An entrepreneurial individual might consider opening up a service that rents out "fathers" to beat these bastard kids' asses for these single moms - it would definitely save taxpayers' money and enforce discipline on the kids, while simultaneously making a profit. - Mirror of the Soul

If your car was as reliable as marriage, every time you got in it you would have a one in two chance of crashing. But let’s not beat around the bush here...let’s rephrase that...if your car “was as reliable as a woman…” -- because women file the vast majority of divorces. - Reality2008 from LoseLoseProspect

On Heather Mills divorce settlement from Paul McCartney:

The family courts in any sane society - that is, a proper Patriarchy - would have handed the daughter to her loving father and then just given Heather a shiny pound coin for the bus home and then told her to hop it. - Duncan Idaho from The Eternal Bachelor

One thing that modern western women don't seem to understand is this: most men in their mid-30s do not feel any deep instinctive desire to commit to a woman in her mid-30s. Whenever, in the history of the world, has there been any society in which the men longed to marry women in their mid-30s? - Darren from Cool Tools For Men

So in Europe between the World Wars, we had a generation growing up without fathers, a circumstance which consistently leads to delinquency, and a couple of dictators playing father figure to the masses who had been deprived of real fathers. And we all know where that led.

And now we have a large percentage of Americans and Europeans without fathers. And it seems that the Islamic world is willing to offer father figures, ones with a sinister agenda that is nonetheless at least not weak and feminine.

Any self-respecting man of intelligence despises feminism, knows that the state is his enemy, and treats women by no other standard than his own personal honor and goodness, be this what it may. - Fidelbogen from The Counter-Feminist

Given that the pool of wealthy men who view career women as marriage material is shrinking while that of wealthy women is increasing, one wonders how many eggs must drop out of the hatch before career women shelve their elaborate delusions. Perhaps an increasing number will discover their inner dyke and/or alternatively stock up on Meow Mix…. - Davout

Each woman is a double agent until proven otherwise. I’m not of the view that they are helpless creatures who can’t help but take part in a giant sisterhood where the only bond is to be born with a set of female genitals. - Pete Patriarch

Unlike western women, asses are intelligent enough to understand the importance of the nuclear family, including a doting mom and a dominant dad ready to kick some ass if / when necessary. - Uzem & Luzem

If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable. - Roissy in D.C.

For the feminist movement to claim that they freed American women is a lie. You were permitted to become feminists by virtue of righteous men. Let the men of this nation become too indignant or unrighteous, and see how long your self-proclaimed liberation lasts. Why don’t you ask the women of Afghanistan what happened to their liberation, which existed prior to the national radicalization of angry men with weapons? - Nancy Levant, Author of The Cultural Devastation of American Women

The astounding fact is that, with the exception of convicted criminals, no group today has fewer rights than fathers. Even accused criminals have the right to due process of law, to know the charges against them, to face their accusers, to a lawyer, and to a trial. A father can be deprived of his children, his home, his savings, his livelihood, his privacy, and his freedom without any of these constitutional protections. And not only a divorced father or a unmarried father: Any father at any time can find himself in court and in jail. Once a man has a child he forfeits his most important constitutional rights. - Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Author of Taken Into Custody

If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what we must do is reduce the number of female-headed families; what we must do is prevent the divorce courts from expelling half of society's fathers from their homes; what we must do is terminate a welfare system which displaces millions of men from the principal male role, that of family-provider. What we must do is make the father the head of the family. - Dr. Daniel Amneus, Author of The Garbage Generation

The Institute for Women's Policy Research finds that life has improved for American women, but "big inequities persist" (November 17). So that's why 80 per cent of suicides are males, 95 per cent of workplace mortality is of males, and men live an average of 7 years less than women. Oh, and 82 per cent of consumer spending is done by women. Kind of makes up for the so-called wage gap, doesn't it? - Lisa Scott from REAL Family Law

A man who wants a family can't have it without a woman. He would prefer a young, fertile one. She will have the energy to keep up with kids, and her body will recover quickly from pregnancy and childbirth. Men know that a woman's sex drive and looks decline. We'd like to start with one where the decline hasn't already gone on for a couple decades. - John Ross from Ross In Range

It's time we deconstructed anonymous sex. Somehow the females have got the upper hand. Much like the diamond cartel ,they have hoodwinked males into thinking that a commodity as commonplace and plentiful as pussy is rare and precious. It's not. In Andy Warhol's words, "Sex is the biggest nothing in the world." I'll never understand why a man would ever pay a woman for sexual gratification. Why shouldn't she pay him? Sex is just as necessary for her. What fools we men are. - Henry Makow from Save the Males

Marriage is a patriarchal institution. Hey guys, if you were designing a world to your specifications, would you design it something like marriage? Would you build a society in which you were with one woman for all of your life, even if she did cook and clean for you and raise your kids? Me, I'd design a society in which I stayed home, watched my kids grow up, and my wife could go work. I'd be allowed to have girlfriends on the side even though I was "married," and when war broke out we'd send all the ladies off to do battle while we stayed home and wrote letters. Anyone who thinks that men invented monogamous marriage or a lot of other things that pass for "patriarchy" is kidding themselves. - BusterB from The Men's Center

The Transportation Security Administration screens all carry-on and checked bags. Why? They are heavy and can be explosive. Because of rising fuel prices, American Airlines is now charging $15 for the first checked bag. Accordingly, every man must screen his woman’s baggage, because it can be heavy, expensive, and explosive — ask any divorce lawyer. - Marc Rudov, The NoNonsense Man

Thirty-odd years ago someone hauled patriarchy into the dock and charged it with a long list of crimes against womankind. The jury was rigged, the defendant was never given a chance to testify, and the verdict was foregone: Guilty as charged. The sentence? Put the loathsome patriarchs in the pokey and bring on the matriarchy. - Columnist Carey Roberts

If women genuinely wanted marriage and family, they would make a more sincere attempt at making themselves agreeable to men. They would be more appreciative of the husbands they had, and not be divorcing so readily. They would be treating men with respect and listening when men try to tell them their view of the world. They wouldn't be supporting laws that relegate men to powerless eunuchs in homes in which they have no legal stake. But instead, they're conceding nothing. If anything, the collective impression of women is that of a sex that becomes less respectful of men and less considerate of male aspirations or interests. - Rob Case from One Man's Kingdom

Regarding "boats or votes", as far as I'm concerned, it's a mutually exclusive, binary choice between one or the other. Women cannot, in fairness, demand preferential seats on the boats on one hand while still exercising preferential rights on the other. Sorry, sister, you gave up the "boats" when you accepted the "votes", and this Christian man feels no obligation to you other than to treat you like another man. A better looking, probably better smelling one, but a man nonetheless. You can jockey for your place in line for the lifeboats with me and all the other men. There's equality for you. - The Elusive Wapiti

Understand that Feminism is the symptom of a larger sickness; an illness that has infected the Western Psyche for generations. The struggles that we as Men have to fight today, have already been fought by our fathers long before. - Toku from Togakure School

After years of feminists stating they don't need us men, reigning judgment on us and acting like we are second class citizens at best, now that they are playing the victim card and bitching about us not wanting to be their valiant knights, they can permanently and implacably fuck off. - Sociopathic Revelation from Feminist Apocalypse

Sometimes I look at an attractive young woman who is determined to change the world and prove that women are truly equal to men in {every possible way} the eyes of the law, in social access, and in opportunity, and it makes me feel as if I'm standing on the edge of a very high precipice with a beautiful kitten in my hands. She's a brave little kitty, a courageous bundle of strength and independence, and her claws are sharp indeed. I cannot help but admire her as she bares her cute little fangs and meows her bold defiance of the uncaring world and all its unfairness and inequality.

Then I extend my arms out over the chasm, and I open my hands, and I cry: "Fly, little kitten, fly like the wind!" - Vox Day from Vox Popoli

And finally....last and certainly not least, a quote from an MRA legend...

Although Clinton's team has laughed it off, there needs to be a public apology from Favreau at the very least, including a statement recognizing why his actions were sexist and wrong. Ideally, we'd see a resignation from Favreau, or a commitment to attend a training on preventing sexual harassment.

Interestingly enough, Hillary's official response via her Senior Advisor was actually sane and shows a sense of humor...

This letter, and Abby's answer, offers an example of the attitudes of our feminist influenced society in terms of male/female roles, expectations and what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

There was a time when women were taught by their elder female family members about the facts of life, and that all girls grew up knowing that when they reached maturity, men would be approaching them as suitors, and most were taught how to politely, firmly and clearly reject unwanted male attention. If a particular male was unusually persistent, the ladies male family members usually got involved to ensure he got the message that his attentions were not wanted.

My how things have changed.

DEAR ABBY: Once a month, a trade representative I'll call "Bob" visits our office and flirts with me. I try to keep him at a distance, but he always tries to move close to me and changes his voice to be soft and seductive. Last month he told me I "smelled good," although I wasn't wearing anything fragrant. I assured him it was the eucalyptus incense behind him.

Abby, Bob comes on so strong it scares me. I had my chair backed up all the way against my computer desk. I decided that the next time he came in I would make sure I had a co-worker close by. But when I did, he didn't act the same way. I have a feeling he won't act up again until we're alone.

I loathe the idea of being alone with him in a room. I hesitate to ask a male co-worker to step in because I don't want to appear weak. What should I do to get Bob to back off? -- HAD IT IN BEAUFORT, S.C.

Here's the key phrase: Abby, Bob comes on so strong it scares me.

This is perfectly indicative of just how confused and corrupted the relationship between the genders have become since the ascendancy of the feminist paradigm in today's society.

The feminists have spent decades now pushing for 'equality' in the workplace. To put women shoulder-to-shoulder with the men in the world of work. One of the means of accomplishing this has been to promulgate a state of mass confusion in gender roles and what is and is not appropriate behavior.

The answer to this confusion, of course, has been to basically criminalize natural, normal male behavior.

Note, the most threatening thing this guy did in this letter writer's description, was to DARE to tell her she smelt good, and to try to get close to her and have conversation.

Oh the horror!

Even more troubling however, was Abby's response:

DEAR HAD IT: If you haven't already done so, document what has gone on each time Bob has come into your office. Frankly, he sounds more than a little bit creepy.

Which part was "more than a little creepy?" Trying to move in closely and softening his voice to talk to her? Complimenting her on her scent?

When he comes on to you again, tell him directly and clearly (and loudly) that he is making you uncomfortable, and if he doesn't stop immediately, you will report him to your boss. And if he tries anything again, follow through.

In other words, this man is a potential RAPIST! Don't forget to yell FIRE!, kick him in the balls, and run screaming from your office! That would CERTAINLY ensure he NEVER commits the horrible crime of flirting with you ever again! He should be fired, arrested, charged with sexual harrassment and thrown into jail! Registered on the sex offenders list for life!

It is your boss's responsibility to provide you with a harassment-free work environment, and if that doesn't happen, your state labor board or the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be notified.

Ah yes, the STATE is RESPONSIBLE that no woman ever has to feel SCARED that a man she does not find attractive in any way, dares to try to flirt and compliment her!

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

While I've posted before how I think the political controversy regarding Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) is really insignificant when you actually look at the biggest threat to the institution of marriage (i.e. no fault divorce and the feminist cultural paradigm), that does not mean I believe marriage should be "re-defined."

I believe that no matter how well meaning, loving, nurturing or nice a single parent, or two same-sex parents can be, or that same-sex or single parents CAN AND DO the best job they possibly can given their respective situations...

...they simply CANNOT provide the primary function of child-rearing that a man and a woman married couple CAN - which is role modeling the behavior of interacting, living and co-existing with a member of the opposite sex for the basic purposes of genetic reproduction and nurturing of the next generation so that they too can mature and reproduce and nurture the genetic line, ensuring genetic survival.

These intrinsic traits of a traditional marriage- based family are in many respects the subconscious programming of the children to give them the tools to form their own lasting lifetime bonds with members of the opposite gender so they can continue to perpetuate the cycle of propagating the species.

No amount of conscious action, behavior or teaching can overcome what is lost in this subconscious programming of intrinsic, human relational behavior between the symmetrical and complementary elements of the human experience - the male and the female psyche.

Here is the ugly truths of reality on this matter...and no amount of beautiful lies or politically correct dogma can change:

Two women simply cannot provide the proper example for a young boy on how to be an adult man.

Two women cannot provide a comparable role modeling for a young girl to learn how to successfully live with a male mate as a man and woman can.

Two men cannot provide a comparable role modeling for a young boy to learn how to successfully live with a female mate as a man and woman can.

And no matter how much self-regard, or how much recognition we heap upon single-parents as the ultimate martyr worthy of self-respect in today's society, I say to you all that while single parents can try to do the best they can, you cannot "replace" or "substitute" a person's father or mother.

If they are not there for your child, they are missing out on having that masculine or feminine influence combined with the natural genetic bond of paternal or maternal relations that are key in their psychological and behavioral development.

Tell yourself all the pretty lies you need to to justify the choices you've made in your life, but in the end, YOU do not pay the price for YOUR choices...it is your children that pay it.

Pair-bonding of opposite genders is based on the biological necessity of creating an environment for the human species to thrive and survive.

From a completely dispassionate, scientific perspective, is not a fact that homosexuality is a biological dead-end?

Somehow, this FACT has become politically incorrect, hateful and bigoted to point out.

And this is why I don't view this movement to re-define "marriage" as an issue of "civil rights."

Marriage is an institution designed to create families to raise the next generation of offspring who in turn perpetuate that cycle by entering the institution themselves when they reach maturity.

Saying a Same Sex couple is 'married' is like saying the Blue Sky is Yellow.

No amount of calling me a bigot, or hateful or whatever is going to change the facts of the matter.

Call it yellow all you want, it's still Blue.

Getting the State to recognize that the sky is Yellow doesn't change the fact that it is still Blue.

Marriage was NEVER about "two loving people sharing their lives."

It was always about what's best for THE CHILDREN.

Somehow, this has been forgotten. Thanks to feminism, birth control, abortion, and a societal "revolution" in attitudes and morays, sex has been detached from procreation, and the very "definition" of marriage has been altered.

Pointing out that the definition has been altered is not in my mind adequate justification for further altering that definition.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

...today, for the first time, I had to attend a mandatory sexual harassment training course.

Can you say "coporate re-education camp for the indoctrination of feminist dogma?"

I find it deeply offensive to my personal sense of honor and integrity to be punished or otherwise lectured on something I did not do. Period. And to be subjected to two hours of second-grade style, “who can tell me what Johnny did wrong by telling Sarah she has a hot body” lecturing infuriates me on many levels.

To begin with, I do not need to be told this is inappropriate behavior. I already know that is inappropriate behavior. I learned that was inappropriate behavior not from the State of California or a battalion of corporate lawyers, but from my parents, who raised me to be polite, well-mannered, and who spent much of their own youth trying to form me into a civilized gentleman.

I hear ya buddy...but don't ya know? There are now millions of kids who are raised by minimum wage day care workers, and single mothers getting welfare checks to subsidize their 'freedom from Patriarchal oppression.' You can't expect THOSE kids to understand things like the behavior of a civilized gentleman!

I was treated to a video that had precisely the same emotional pitch and condescension as the old ABC After-School Specials, which is appropriate when aimed at 10-year-olds but in a room full of adults was unimaginably cloying and infantile. In this helpful lecture on the evils of hateful stereotypes, a clueless, insensitive white male managed to offend everyone without the dimmest awareness of his own boorishness until confronted and re-educated (with a rising string section!) by emotionally advanced, sensitive (yet strong!) women and his solemn, understanding (but firm!), black male superior.

While I appreciate your scorn for the insult to your intelligence that represents blatantly over-dramatized propaganda targeted towards a 10 year old's intellectual level, I must disagree...at least you are old enough to see through the politically correct lies of this garbage. It is much more INappropriate to indoctrinate actual 10 years olds with this feminist drivel!

But what really set me off was learning that there are “protected categories” of people who apparently have special claims on being harassed, and that these groups include, but are not limited to:

“Race, color…” [in case you happen to be green or of some color not associated with your race] ”…religious creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, pregnancy, childbirth…” [this being different from pregnancy presumably only if you are actually giving birth right there in your cubicle] “…physical disability, mental disability, age, military status or status as a Vietnam-era or special disabled veteran, marital status, registered domestic partner or civil union status, gender (including sex stereotyping and gender identity or expression), medical condition (including, but not limited to, cancer-related or HIV-related), or sexual orientation.”

These – including but not limited to -- “protected categories” are areas in which “harassment” is especially hurtful, as far as I can understand it… which is not very far at all. Can you – offhand – think of any kind of harassment that does not fit into these categories? I suppose saying hateful things about the Florida State football team is okay as long as I don’t use the word “Seminoles” (which would then become offensive on the grounds of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry and military status; to which, I will add as a Gator fan regarding FSU grads, mental disability and – what the hell – sexual orientation.)

Don't ya know? In today's Matriarchal society, all Animals are equal...only some Animals are more equal!

All of this is mere sophistry and cover of course, for the essence of the 22 page workbook I received (and for which I was not given a crayon with which to write nor a gold star when it was completed) was boiled down to a single sentence, in bold italics at the bottom of page 15:It is not the intent of the alleged harasser, but the impact on the recipient.

It doesn’t matter if you meant to hurt someone. As long as someone was hurt, then harassment took place.

Welcome to the Matriarchy! It's not what you meant or didn't mean to do or say...it's how SHE FEELS that determines the level of your ThoughtCrime and Double-plus Ungood Speech!

Now at the end of all this, the facilitator – who is clearly a lovely person, for this is not aimed at her – smilingly told us not to be paranoid but just to be careful not to offend anyone. And the other 23 people nodded happily and made jokes and goofed around to show how lighthearted and un-paranoid we suddenly all were. And yet, this harassment and sensitivity training did not succeed fully, because there was one person who was offended, and who in point of fact felt extremely harassed. And that person was me.

Sorry. You're a privileged, White Male. You CAN'T be offended or harrassed, because you're a member of the Patriarchal Hegemony that needs to be overthrown!

My parents – remember them? – taught me at an early age that what people said or thought or wrote about me did not have the power to hurt me – only I can allow them to do that. My self-worth, self-respect and self-esteem are earned, and not given, and are therefore mine – impervious to anything in the outside world, which is why I am willing to sit at this desk, as the only one of 24 happy, smart, creative people, and look like some reactionary nut case for being enraged about the fact that we willingly submit ourselves to insults to our personal honor and integrity that our forefathers would never, ever have countenanced. And I am ashamed on behalf of them. But just me. No one else thinks anything of it at all.

You can't blame your 23 other colleagues...they are simply just another example of how We The Sheeple have been effectively and deliberately dumbed-down to become nothing more than HUMAN RESOURCES for our corporate overlords, happy in our debt-slavery!

And so, with smiles and good will all around, behind a plate of donuts and cartons of morning orange juice, we again fall another step from the adult world of action and consequence, to the warm, friendly, everlasting childhood of kindergarten, where no one’s feelings can ever be hurt and teacher is always there to make sure – in her gentle but firm way – that there will never be harmful consequences to your actions because your actions will be so curtailed in advance that offending someone – like feeding and housing yourself – are things that we simply no longer have to worry about any more.

While this blogger never explicitly makes the connection between feminism and the indoctrination he was forcibly subjected to, he certainly describes the new paradigm of our permanently infantilized society promulgated by the Feminist Police State.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

While one part of me wishes Guy Ritchie would make an example of the total inequity and injustice of the Feminist corrupted Divorce Court system, and take Madonna to the cleaners like Heather Mills did to Sir McCartney...

...the example he sets here is more important, and it is something divorcing parents from all walks of life should pay attention to as they get ready to battle it out in court over the physical assets, reducing their children into nothing more than pawns for leverage to squeeze as much money as they can from their soon-to-be ex spouse.

Richie, who is currently looking after their sons, took them both to the London set of his film Sherlock Holmes.

The source said: 'It will be all over by the end of the month. The priority for him has always been the children.

'Ritchie has not wanted her money. He has done exactly what Billie Piper did when she divorced Chris Evans. She walked away without any of his money, much to her credit. Guy Ritchie has done the same.'

A second source said: 'Ritchie could have taken her to the cleaners. He is a very honourable man to have walked away.'

In short, Guy could have hired the most blood-sucking, ambulance-chasing court shark to take up to half of Madonna's fortune, as he is entitled to under UK Family law.

Instead, he gets Madonna to concede to shared custody if he agrees to not go after her money.

On the other hand, it certainly illustrates another aspect of the inherent gender bias in the divorce court industry...as Madonna's negotiations on this settlement most certainly start with the leverage she has from getting default custody for simply being female!

Good to see that Mr. Richie recognizes that no amount of money can replace the time he has to spend with his boys as they are growing up.

Hymowitz is dishonest. She's a Cultural Marxist, a con artist who will say anything in order to be the one who sets the rules and breaks them at her pleasure.

To summarize :1. Hymowitz claims the Men's Rights movement is all about Pick-Up Artists.2. Hymowitz wants society to put more restrictions on men so that civilization doesn't collapse.3. Hymowitz wants to be sure that her little elite clique gets to define what the rules are for their own advantage.

The whole piece is classic Cultural Marxism. Harangue the victim with a plea for a return to morality -- then demand to be the arbiter of morality.

Hymowitz should admit her personal guilt and the guilt of her associates in destroying civilized culture.

Oh dear. Hymowitz is at it again, this time surveying the behavior of SYMs in the dating scene and concluding that the immature, beastly child-boys have have cravenly replaced gentlemanly romantic behavior with the cold equations of survival-of-the-fittest sexual Darwinism:

I commented on Wapiti's post with the following:

Look through her entire article...not once will you see the word "hypergamy."

The "New Girl Order" (Hymowitz own phrase she coined) has changed women's behavior...but NOT the basic, biological imperatives that drive them to seek out mates with superior genes to give their offspring a better chance to survive and thrive.

Under the New Girl Order, the cultural zeitgeist has basically presented a false paradigm to boys growing into manhood...that they must get in touch with their feminine side, that they must be more emotional and in tune with feelings, etc. Couple this society-wide social conditioning with a generation of boys raised by single mothers of divorce or illegitimacy where they're only ideas of manhood are based on what they're mothers SAY a "real man" should think and behave like (i.e. putting women on a pedestal, femininity), and you have this mass of males growing up to think and act like Beta's.

All's "game" is, is re-connecting men to the idea of masculine dominance as the most desired trait females look for in mate selection.

It is no more manipulative than a woman who seeks to "boost" the mating attributes that males value most -i.e. cosmetics to highlight the appearance of youthful fertility.

The only difference is that in the New Girl Order, where all women are programmed since child hood that they are "equal" and "can do anything a man can do!" and "You Go Girl!" is the overriding mantra of our culture, Women are indoctrinated to SAY they want "equality" with a mate, while subconsciously, they're attraction triggers are based on identifying dominant males!

Kay is incapable of recognizing this, because she too is beholden to the cultural motif of "equality." Most Western Women cannot and will not admit that they value men who are dominant over them...because to admit it aloud would cause cognitive dissonance with their societal programming!

This is EXACTLY why we have women telling their girl-friends, emotional tampon guy friends and gay male friends how they dream of a man who is thoughtful, considerate, in touch with his feelings, blah blah blah...than go out and bang the bad boys.

My thoughts on this particular topic have definitely been influenced from reading PUA websites and blogs.

As notorious PUA blogger, Roissy in D.C., wrote in response to her latest:

Unfortunately, she does not make the connection and put two and two together. The problem lies not with men, who are merely skeleton keys that adapt to whatever lock women weld on their gates; the “problem” lies with women who have no choice but to obey their hindbrain programming and seek higher status mates in the sexual market as long as their assets allow.

While I too am critical of Hymowitz's writings in her two articles dealing with the fallout from the Feminist revolution and it's affects on dating and mating in America, I still feel it necessary to temper criticism with the credit she is due for past works, and that she does make at least some effort to see the male point of view.

Unlike most female writers/columnist/journalists, Hymowitz does not completely surrender her pretense of intellectual honesty to feminist dogma.

I read that article and blogged about it back before both "Child Man in the Promised Land" and "Love in the Time of Darwinism" were published.

I think Hymowitz needs to go back and view the current scene of chaos caused by her New Girl Order, and understand that feminism has not only devastated the Black Family, it is also the direct cause for Men avoiding marriage and family creation, and that this avoidance IS ENTIRELY RATIONAL.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Just about everything that is wrong in our society today, and everything that is a manifestation of the decline of Western Civilization, can be traced to the machinations of the power elite playing the part of the Wizard of Oz, pulling the various levers that control society.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Always remember that the Government DOES NOT work for "We the People."

Our empowered Federal Government has been THE primary lever for which the "Wizard" has pulled to effect the changes to create our highly engineered society.

The Federal Government, and all of it's permutations and manifestations of the bureaucratic behemoth, has become the leviathan that reaches into EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES.

FDA - DEA - AHA - BATF - CIA - FBI - NEA - NPR - DOE...

Someone please show me how and where the Constitution called for the Federal Funding for these entities that are attached to the teat of the Federal Government pork barrel?

It's amazing if one takes a step back and looks at the big picture here.

Via the power AND facade of legitimacy provided by this entity of the Federal Government, the power elite - the super-rich owners and benefactors of the think tanks, tax-exempt foundations, and owners of the large, multi-national corporations and central bankers have covertly and overtly engineered society to suit their own agenda.

Feminism, public schooling, and the infiltration of academia have all colluded into brainwashing the masses to turn out a population of Sheeple, easily herded into any direction the power elite wish to shepherd them. Let's look at the results as they now exist...

Thanks to the feminist movement, women are now a significant portion of the tax-paying, wage and/or debt slaves to the corporate machine.

Children are now wards of minimum wage workers or wards of the welfare state...or the proverbial chains of peonage on "Deadbeat Dads" enslaved by the divorce court industry.

Abortion, birth control and the current cultural zeitgeist that urges young girls consider career track instead of forming families and raising children are all an integral part of the population control agenda. We can't have the masses breed without permission, overpopulating the world and using up the resources that our betters should have all to themselves, now can we?

All you MRA minded folks that actually read my blog and all the others found in the MRA/MGTOW/Father's Rights blogosphere need to wake up to the reality that Feminism is but ONE manifestation of how our society has been engineered by the power elite to the detriment of the masses.

The feminist agenda of infanticide and recreational sex, disassociated with procreation, are but one facet of the power elite's de-population agenda. Another facet is just as significant and far-reaching as feminism has been implemented to further their de-population agenda: the food and drug business as sanctioned and promoted by the Federal Government under the title of the Food & Drug Administration.

Our food supply in America is completely tainted with all kinds of chemicals and additives that are designed to create "food" that can be manufactured at a central location, stored and shipped all over the world without visible "spoilage."

And yet We The Sheeple blindly pay no attention to this current affairs because "the FDA and the DEA and the AHA and all the other alphabet soup agencies funded by the Federal Government tell us "Don't worry, we've made sure these things are alright for you to eat! Trust us! We're the Federal Government after all!"

The end result is to maximize their profits, with the rubber stamp of approval at the expense of our health and well-being.

Ever wonder why the "Atkins Diet" was such a popular "fad diet" that many people found worked in their efforts to lose weight? It's because the Atkins diet is THE COMPLETE opposite of the FDA's Food Pyramid guide to proper diet! The FDA is nothing more than the stooges for Big Agriculture and Big Pharma -- who are of course all the multi-national corporations owned and run by the power elite - the Wizard behind the curtain...the same wizard that pulled the levers of feminism, is also pulling the levers of food and drug control of the population).

The more people follow this "guide" the more sickly people get, the bigger the market of people who need Big Pharma's products that alleviate symptoms but NEVER CURE what is at the root, years of malnutrition and it's resulting physical degeneration.

See, processed and enriched grains, and the sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup, and mass-produced vegetable oils are the primary culprits of ill-health and degenerative conditions...but through mass propaganda to a dumbed-down populace, most people believe that meat, and saturated fats like butter, are bad for you, and that products such as margarine, canola oil and anything with Soy in it are all "good for you" because they are all based on "vegetables."

Go into any grocery store in this country and look at almost any packaged/processed "food." Notice the marketing slogans (corporate/agriculture/FDA approved propaganda). Look at how everything is "low-fat" or "non-fat." Understand that this has been the conventional wisdom (deliberately propagated falsehood!) for over a decade...yet the obesity rate of Americans is at an all-time high!

Do these following statements cause you to scratch your head in puzzlement?"Eating fat does NOT make you fat.""Eating cholesterol does not cause you to have high cholesterol."

If that sounds ludicrous to you, that is because the power elite has ingrained these LIES into our consciousness, so as to further the profitability of the Agricultural and Pharmaceutical industries!

Most of you reading this understand that making our selves aware of the social engineering involved in the feminist movement is the key to understanding why society is in the state that it is in today...now understand that it is all connected, and that the food most of us eat and the health problems most of us experience are directly related to the same folks that gave us the wonders of feminism.

If you want to unplug COMPLETELY from the Matrix, educate yourself on how our national health problems are all directly tied into the EXACT same de-population agenda of the power elite who control our food and drug supply and deliberately corrupt our health care to further their own elitist agenda.

Think my rantings on a de-population agenda are in the realm of conspiracy theory that only George Noori from Coast to Coast AM radio would contemplate?

Thursday, November 6, 2008

First of all, I'm absolutely 100% disgusted with the fact that a man with empty rhetoric and vacuous campaigning tactics has fooled so many people in this country into believing he can bring "HOPE AND CHANGE" by promoting the same old socialist/Marxist redistributionist propaganda.

We really are a nation of Useful Idiots.

Yes, this nation has been deliberately dumbed down, and the popular election of Obama shows EXACTLY how dumbed down the masses are. Mass manipulation of the mainstream has now proven to be easily accomplished.

Here's a humorous take that is not too far from the truth...

{note - The video says "no longer available," but it is, you just have to click on it}

The funny thing is that all of the things David Alan Greer mentions? There is an element of truth in what he says...but what he and most of the sheeple in this country fail to comprehend is that all of the things he cites were deliberately caused by the power elite that manipulate the media, corporations and both political parties themselves to further the agenda towards the destruction of American sovereignty and the establishment of a One World Government. Obama is not going to solve any of these problems anymore than George Bush and the Republicans could. He'll simply carry on with the exact same work that Bush has been doing for the past 8 years.

However, I do have to say that just because I'm opposed to Obama, the Democrat Socialist Party of the US, and the entire liberal agenda, and that I have an absolute disdain and disgust for the Vice-Mangina-in-Chief, Joe Biden, that does not mean there is nothing positive from having Obama as the President.

First and foremost, this idea that Black American's cannot succeed in AmeriKKKa because of institutional racism? Sorry liberals and black activists, you can no longer make that claim with any kind of credibility. We now have a black man who beat the crap out of a rich, white, old-boy network man at the ballot box.

A black man holds the highest office in the land.

So affirmative action, race based quota's and all the other programs based on the idea that black americans need a helping hand because they cannot succeed in a society entrenched with racism? The proof that this is not true is now in the White House!

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

I decided not to participate in today's grand charade of American "Democracy."

It's not like my vote in Hawaii is going to count anyways, every single National election I can remember except for the 2000 election has ALWAYS been over before Hawaii's polls are even closed (and even in the case of 2000, Hawaii's electoral votes were inconsequential, regardless of how the Florida re-count went, and secondly, this State is about as "blue" as it gets.)

I contemplated driving to my nearest childhood indoctrination center and standing in line to cast a protest vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party...decided that even that was a waste of my time. I simply see no value in participating in the charade any longer. All of the issues I care about are not even up for debate amongst the "opposing" parties.

Today, millions of Americans will validate their faith in the secular religion of democracy by going to the polls, as they do every four years, to choose between two basically interchangeable candidates, both of whom were, as always, hand-picked by the power elite because they can be trusted to dutifully perpetuate their system.

McBama...O'Cain, Republicrats or Democans, it matters not.

This year is no different; while there may be some fairly trivial differences between them, in the grand scheme of things, it makes no fundamental difference whether McCain or Obama is elected – the underlying system will continue under either of them.

For anyone who doubts this, let’s look at Obama’s and McCain’s stated positions, and see if we can figure out what everyone is so worked up about.

Here, Kramer offers us a table of issues in which Obama and McCain are both pawns of the power elite who differ not a whit in maintaining the status quo.

Maintain the Federal Reserve and its power to ruin the economy and erode citizens’ standard of living with inflation, making credit too easily available, and inflicting the boom-and-bust cycle?

Maintain the income tax and the commensurate level of federal spending?

Prolong the recession by trying to forcibly prevent normal market corrections, such as falling prices, failures of unsound businesses, and liquidation of bad debt?

Maintain the FDA and the government’s medical- and pharmaceutical-industrial complexes?

Maintain – and expand – the government’s ruinous healthcare policies and programs, which, along with the pharmaceutical-industrial complex, are the root causes of healthcare being so expensive?

Continue the Drug War, which has accomplished nothing in decades but wasting billions of dollars, fostering black markets and all of their inherent problems, and giving the U.S. the highest number of imprisoned people in the world – both in absolute terms and as a percentage of its population?

Maintain U.S. troop presence in Iraq indefinitely?

Perpetuate the rest of the military-industrial complex, including permanent U.S. troop presence and bases in more than half of the world’s countries and foreign "aid?"

Continue dismantling property rights (which are the only possible source of real environmental protection), eroding human living standards, decrying prosperity and plenty, and subsidizing "green" industries that can’t survive in the market, all under the guise of "protecting the environment" and battling the meaningless catch-all term, "climate change?"

Looking at this table, it’s easy to see why the mainstream media insists that this is "the most important election in our lifetimes!" Which they also said in 2004. And 2000. And 1996 . . .

Scientists first observed in the 17th century that women’s reproductive histories impacted their risk for breast cancer when it was noticed that nuns were at high risk for the disease. Scientists surmised that childbearing provides women with increased protection.

Today’s medical experts agree that the best way women can reduce their lifetime risk for breast cancer is by: 1) Having an early first full term pregnancy (FFTP) starting before age 24; 2) Bearing more children; and 3) Breastfeeding for a longer lifetime duration. It’s undeniable that abortion causes women to change their childbearing patterns. It leads them to forego the protective effects of early FFTP, increased childbearing and breastfeeding. Consequently, scientists do not debate that it increases breast cancer risk in this first of two ways.

Despite these truths, there is not one cancer fundraising business that uses the phrase, "Abortion raises breast cancer risk." Not one of them has ever denounced Planned Parenthood for depriving women of the protective effect of childbearing or acknowledged that abortion contributes to the nation’s breast cancer rates at least in this way.

If childbearing reduces breast cancer risk, then choosing not to have that child means a greater breast cancer risk for the woman. Therefore, there is no debate among scientists that the woman who aborts has a greater breast cancer risk than does the woman who has a baby (assuming that her pregnancy lasts at least 32 weeks).

Fascinating stuff...

However, it's not just the fact that a woman that has an abortion never realizes the protection she gets from carrying a pregnancy to full term when she is young, there is another effect that occurs when a female becomes pregnant and has an abortion...

Abortion has been implicated with breast cancer in yet another way, however, and estrogen overexposure is the explanation for it. There is staggering evidence of an independent link between abortion and breast cancer. What this means is that a woman who has an abortion is left with more cancer-vulnerable cells than she had before she ever became pregnant. Biological evidence and more than two dozen studies worldwide support a cause and effect relationship. Fifteen studies were conducted on American women, and 13 of them reported risk elevations. Seven found a more than a twofold elevation in risk. Seventeen are statistically significant, 16 of which demonstrated a positive association. The term “statistical significance” means that scientists are at least 95% certain that their findings are not due to chance or error.

The evidence of a causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer isn’t only based on a statistical relationship either. Scientists also require biological evidence and a reasonable biological explanation before concluding that there’s a causal relationship. These requirements have been met.

In summary, when a woman becomes pregnant, her body chemistry changes dramatically. Her body produces massive amounts of estrogen in the beginning stages of a pregnancy, and part of that is to prepare the breast tissue to begin producing milk.

These biological facts are the basis for making the abortion/breast cancer connection:

The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains un-refuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy - after 32 weeks gestation - that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”

The fact that such scientific research is not widely known...despite having a "Breast Cancer Awareness Month" and the million and one charities and foundations supposedly dedicated to eradicating breast cancer only goes to show what the mainstream establishment and the feminist movement value more - there sacred sacrament of infanticide over the lives of the very women they supposedly care so much about.

Shouldn't every woman contemplating an abortion be educated on the biological truth that having one can increase the likelihood of developing breast cancer later on in her life?

Why wouldn't a pro-choice advocacy want women to know about the dangers of an elective procedure?

Answer: because the real agenda is global depopulation. Just as millions of babies are murdered in their wombs, so to are millions of women who are exposed to much higher risks of dying from cancer. It's a win-win situation for the global elite that want to reduce the number of proles...so that they can achieve there primary goal of environmental "sustainability."

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

An anonymous commenter wrote the following in my last post. She wrote a lot, so I will respond to each point in the "Fisk" style.

A woman who is sick of you complaining said...

I'm sorry but I feel the need to comment on this whole "regulated sex" shit. I've been reading the MRA blogs for the past few weeks, while most of the men post very valuable commentary, and make great points about feminism and how women act today, I can't understand why men don't understand where feminism came from.

If you've been reading MRA blogs for a few weeks, may I suggest you do even more reading? Perhaps you may actually educate yourself as to where feminism REALLY came from.

It is NOT some reaction to historical oppression of one gender by another as the revisionist feminists and Women's Study professors have brainwashed society into believing.

Feminism is the purposeful and deliberate indoctrination of an entire generation of females intended to break up the very foundation of society - the nuclear family.

Feminism has put forth the LIE that the Patriarchal model for ordering families as the building blocks of society is nothing more than men selfishly "oppressing" females for their own benefit.

In short, feminism was started by communist/marxist agent provacateurs that infiltrated the institutions of academia and the mass media to further a globalist, de-population agenda that involves evicting Father's from the homes to create as many single mother households as possible that are dependent on the State for subsistence.

Here are some quotations from prominent feminists, courtesy of the MRA blog, No Ma'am:

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

Are you all idiots. Have you ever wondered why women began to feel oppressed? Probably not, because you are men and you think to methodically and with no emotion at all. The idea that men should regulate the sexual activities of a woman is as stupid as women regulating male sexuality. No one is ever the property of anyone else, and as soon as men come to terms with this notion, the sooner the sexes will stop being at war. Women are just trying to break free from being owned as property. Just like a piece of land, men feel they can dispose of us at anytime, or trade up.

You poor, pitiful, brainwashed fool. The "Oppression" of the Patriarchal system was not that men OWNED women. It is the agreement between Men and Women for the benefit of the CHILDREN that are the product of their union. Here's some more reading for you if you are truly interested in understanding how feminism has tricked women such as you into believing that traditional marriage was "oppression."

Not to mention, before Feminism, men had no problem keeping a wife and having numorous affair. Women saw this made a consious decision to act against this, which is competely understandable. For every action there is a reaction, and the male population is totally ingoring this!Don't you understand that women were just reacting to the way they were being treated....like property. As a survior of sexual abuse by numorous males, the notion that any one owns my body and should have access to it and any time he pleases is rupulsive and is probably why I have yet to be married at the age of 29. I am no man's property. I have a mind of my own. I think for myself and don't need a man to do it for me. Men are unable to get past the sex, because that's all they are programed to want. It has been stated by many MRA bloggers.

All of these things that you write, are answered in that last link I posted. But if you don't bother to read it, at least read this much from Rob Fedder's post at No Ma'am:

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”

Marriage was a contract in which a woman traded her sexual reproductive ability for a man's economic labor ability. Marriage was NEVER a man "owning" a woman, lock. stock and barrel. He did NOT have carte blanche to do as he pleased or treat her as a slave.

Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.

The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.

Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.

But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.

Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

---

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!

What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

Perhaps now you can understand exactly what the institution of marriage was all about, and how the feminists have purposely subverted it by negating women's responsibilities to abide by the terms of it, while still holding men to it.

See, in today's divorce culture, Men are STILL held to the terms of exchange - they still have to provide economic labor in the forms of alimony and child support, while women can freely violate the marriage contract without losing that economic labor...yet the courts regularly take away what the man was SUPPOSED to gain in the economic contract of marriage - his children.

Men don't give a shit about what women think or do, just the pussy, and how to get it. And you males wonder why women have abandoned marriage and other conventional "wisdoms".

Actually, women by and large have not abandoned marriage the institution. They abandon "marriages" to specific males (to the tune of 70% of all divorces instigated by women...many times through no specific fault of the man's...only under the claim that she is "bored" or "not in love" or "unfulfilled" and she needs to "find herself.")

But you women all STILL want to get married. It is men going their own way and pursuing the eternal bachelor lifestyle who are abandoning the institution of marriage. That is because feminist-minded women such as yourself have decided that marriage is "oppression," and that you should all be free to use your sexuality in anyway you please, without penalty.

If that is what you believe is your ultimate definition of "freedom," than what is in it for a man to get married? If the marriage does not guarantee that a woman does not have to "oppress" her sexuality and sleep around at her will, than what's in it for us men to bind our economic productivity to a contract that you females won't keep, but we are forced to by the law?

Let me ask you males a question. What if someone owned you as property, and made all your choices for you, what if you were alienated and isolated because of children, husband and had no social interaction. Can you imagine a life like this? If you can, you are probably a woman. If you can't you're a man. So don't blame the feminist. They are only reacting to the confinment of the male establishment of the last hundred or so years. Come on guys, how long did you think women would be ok with being treated like shit? And don't give me that crap about women were treated well and already had power. Lies, lies, lies! I'm so sick of men complaining, now you finally know what it is like to be a woman and you hate it. You hate it because you know it's how women have been treated. Because to let yourself feel the emotion that women feel would be emasculating and lord know that you men can't have that, heaven forbid you have emotions. It would also force you to recognize that patriarchy is just as bad as matriarchy and you would fall from from your golden thrown and and land your ass on your pointy crown. What a sight that would be!

Look at all your bitterness and anger...it is all misdirected towards men and the institution of Patriarchy. Your indoctrination has been thorough.

Keep reading MRA blogs, and then perhaps you can de-program yourself and realize that the gender war you are so invested in has been the deliberate manipulations of people that do NOT want men and women to happily raise the next generation of children in happy homes...but only want to have control of the minds of society so they can consolidate and expand their power into the most personal sphere of anyone's life, the family.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Helen McCaffery, the Director for Woman's Watch Inc., a Women's Advocacy Group, has written an article for the Philadelphia Inquirer in which she further promotes the mindless tropes of propaganda that are part and parcel to the shibboleth's of feminism.

I cannot predict who will win the presidential campaign, but I already know who will lose big: all women.

Of course, because in identity/gender politics, there is always a need to identify the victim class, so that they can be held up in the highest esteem. Truth doesn't matter, as we all know that in fact regardless of who will win the presidential campaign, the misandry of our family courts, divorce and child support system and the continuation of "affirmative action" policies that legislate preferential treatment for women will remain in full force...so of course, all women will lose big, dontchya know?

I realized this when I saw a 20-something male student who attends a class in the community college where I teach, wearing a T-shirt that read, "Sarah Palin is a C-." He wore it in public, in broad daylight, and without shame or even consciousness of what he was doing.

I took the time to advise him of the "error of his ways" and informed him of the consequences if he wore it to my class.

Shame? Consciousness of degrading a woman based on her physical appearance? Typical of the clueless feminist, who cannot even begin to understand that it was her precious movement's work to "free" women from the stigma of unregulated sexual behavior -- i.e "Patriarchal Oppression" that has resulted in our current society for which women are objectified and reduced to nothing more than the value of their physical appearance!

Also note her authoritarian prederliction to censor the misguided man's right to free speech, because it ran up agaisnt her own politicially correct sensibilities.

This encounter shook me right down to my socks.

So typical of a feminist, over-dramatizing and emoting in the extreme over such an inconsequential issue such as the subject matter of a T-Shirt a student is wearing.

Most of my adult life has been spent working for civil rights for all Americans, as a lawyer defending constitutional rights and now as a college teacher and director of a nonprofit advocating for the rights of women.

As a lawyer defending constitutional rights, shouldn't you be aware that we are all supposedly equal under the law regardless of gender? I guess it really is a stretch to expect feminists to possess even a miniscule iota of intellectual honesty.

It was the encounter with the young man that woke me up, but there were signs all along the campaign trail. First, with the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won 18 million popular votes from the people of the United States and was ridiculed, marginalized, and put in her place when she wasn't even offered the vice presidency slot.

Oh I see. Hillary was entitled to the VP slot, because of the 18 million popular votes...but because Barak Hussein Obama didn't offer it to her, it was a blow to the entire female gender! Women were ridiculed, marginalized and put in their place!

It's a good thing all you perfect little feminists are such useful idiots for the Democrat party...because they can screw you right in front of your faces and still count on knowing that come election day, you will all pull the appropriate lever and vote for the Donkey candidates, no matter how much they ridicule, marginalize and put you dumb feminists in your place!

But the really big attack on women occurred when John McCain selected only the second woman in history to be on a major-party ticket.

...

I thought Americans would be proud of her nomination, whether we agreed or disagreed with her on the issues. Was I in for a shock.

The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.

Only to a deluded, feminist useful idiot like yourself could have been surprised by the so-called "unexpected places" for which this sexism erupted.

Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.

The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."

"Stone her"? How biblical.

Notice she fails to even coming close to mentioning the source of these sexist and misogynistic attacks. It's the VERY leftist-liberal-progressive-Democrat contingent that is supposedly the champions of her precious feminist movement!

Didn't you idiots learn NOTHING from the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair? That as long as a liberal democrat votes for the right party and supports the appropriate feminist policies of unrestricted infanticide, they can get away with any kind of racist, sexist, bigoted behavior...especially if the target for such attacks is a right-winger-fundie-Republican-conservative?

Don't you know...the end justifies the means...

....sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette?

Ahhh...feminist useful idiocy is so entertaining to behold.

All this is at a time when women are regularly being raped as they try to cross the border into the United States; bloody, broken women haunt the emergency rooms of hospitals; and abuse and disrespect for women and girls is rising faster than bank bailouts. That is the atmosphere in which people, including women, choose to attempt to destroy a woman who is a legitimate political leader.

Agreement on issues is not required, but Palin merits respect.

Oh the irony. First, this TOOL invokes the spectre of dastardly, evil men everywhere who are brutalizing women wherever and whenever possible - but she fails to realize that it is the promotion of such mindless, baseless generalizations that have created the very atmosphere that empowers her fellow liberal-democrat-progressives to carry out this proverbial witch-hunt with regards to Mrs. Palin.

It is dismaying that misogyny and sexism are so excessively marbleized into our daily interactions that some of us cannot even recognize their existence when confronted with it or when staring at it directly in the mirror.

{Laughing my ass off}

You dumb broad. You cannot even bring yourself to mention the political party or ideology that is behind the very sexist and misogynist attacks you are decrying! Try and confront that first!

Mockery and vilification of women such as Palin should become just as taboo as race-based slams. Until then, women are the real losers.

In your distorted world view, there is no "Until then." Women will always be the real losers. How else can you maintain the current misandry codified in our system to advantage women everywhere, unless you continue to promote the lie that all women are victims?